deckheight

Thanks for the info guys. I will give you a call.

Anyone know where to get the rubber coated base gaskets that Passion Racing uses? I know Passion still sells them, does anybody else??

Different compressions gages read different. A short threaded end will give a lower reading than a longer one, as will a gage with the schrader valve near the head rather than down near the engine. In general, it is often more important that both cylinders are "balanced" (read within 5-10psi of each other) than wether or not they blow a specific number. If the bike starts easy and runs good but your still worried about it I would probably check it with a known accurate gage before visually inspecting the bores.

Been there, done that... Make sure the magnet is "firmly" attached to something so you can get it back out, otherwise it will be firmly attached to a crank web when you "try" to pull it out... Worst case is remove the cylinders if the magnet trick doesn't work.

Yes, I suspected that to be the direction headed when you posted the pic of the radial cut OEM head. I did see see good results at times from increased fuel mixing and corresponding reductions in ignition timing. However, it was fairly inconsistent at times and and just became too expensive... :: I also aquired a much better appreciaton for Canadian Whisky... What is your method of measuring CC turbulence? What are you seeing as average increased efficiency in terms of BMEP? I have a million questions... I'll keep it short though LOL!

I'm good with that. You did catch my attention with the "mysterious" math comment however. :woot: Always searching for the perfect combustion chamber for a specific application, who isn't... When someone I consider competent speaks I at least listen, sometimes ask questions too. Again, I had just thought you made a typo. We are obviously applying different methods to control CC temperature issues. Is it possible that you could elaborate or no?

Not really, given the info provided you pretty well covered it near as I can tell...

Hmmm, not sure what to think about that... In your opinion, are Blair's math calcs incorrect? Last I heard his SAE papers were proven?? I could be wrong??? I can certaintly appreciate not being comfortable with someones elses math, data, etc. However, I am not sure what your point is with regard to "mysterious" math? Exactly on the "different strokes"... As I have already stated, I keep things pretty basic around here... I am defenitely not in a competitive or an adversarial position. :cool: ?

Sounds like somebody has been busy :biggrin: :biggrin: Way to go man...

LOL! With all due respect, I had thought you might have just made a typo or something... I use the same calculator that anyone with a few hundred$$$ to spend can use also. IMHO, given the parameters of this particular thread... "Not Good" would probably be a better fit. "only one element of the equation"... Really goes without saying don't you think? Funny you should ask... I did in fact consider the effects of eddy currents in 2-stroke hemisperical combustion chambers in the mid 80's and again in the mid to late 90's. Unless there is something new and improved going on with it, thanks but no thanks. Best of luck with it though :biggrin: :biggrin:

You realize that with just a faced mating surface, but otherwise typical OEM dome geometry... .032" squish clearance will yeild an MSV in the mid 30's with pump gas compressions and the usual aftermarket tuned exhaust type maximum rpm's right?

:cool: See how the schedule looks as it gets closer to those dates. I was just suggesting the front sprockets so you could get an idea of the difference running shorter gearing would make without spending a bunch $$$ and hopefully without changing a chain... I have heard about the 12 tooth sprocket issues Snop mentioned before. Not sure what to make of it since my bike had an apparently well used one on there when I bought it and I didn't notice any abnormal wear on any of the associated parts. In fact, I liked the gearing it came with so much that I replaced everthing with the same when I put the new swinger on. Who knows??? Time will tell I guess MPO on CPI inframes is that they are not what most people would consider a "drag pipe". They defenitely make more power than T-5's at a higher rpm though. Not good for me personally... But, if I did want to make more ponies at higher rpms with inframes I would probably be looking at Sherer instead of CPI. At any rate, I still just have my crummy T-5's :biggrin: :biggrin: The gearing specs from Red Line sound pretty good to me. Way better than average chance that you will be pleasantly surprised at the difference. I am running 33mm PWK's on my stock stroke bike and they are sweet. They meter fuel through the circuits well enough and seem to hold a tune during the course of the day. Highly recommended.

Like I already said... You already have a 13 tooth, just put it on there and see what it does. However, from your previous launch description, a 13 tooth might not be enough, might want to just go straight to a 12??? At any rate, for a $15 sprocket what's it going to hurt? Several of us ride at Horsfall/Hauser and our setups include T-5's, I am also familiar with Red Line T-5 porting... A 12 tooth will make your set-up come to life! And you will still have plenty of top speed for everything but maybe the Hauser flats??? Maybe? If you don't have it figured out the next time you make Coos, get ahold of me :biggrin: BTW, what octane fuel did Red Line tell you to run? edited for: sphelling

It doesn't matter. Typical Wiseco, Banshee pistons = Either side up and either ring in either ring land.

Your geared too high... Should be able to at least get a good 2nd gear launch! Try a 13 tooth up front, if thats better, try a 12, if thats better try a 43 or 44 rear and so on till you like it...

Same reason I got into this stuff... I am using manual machines so no swirly thingys here, I keep it pretty basic. The numbers are correct and the motors like my heads well enough though. The head in your pic sure does look pretty :cool:

Antiseize and 100 inlb. on head studs. 20-22 ftlb. on head nuts like has already been said.

LOL! Shoot me a private w/e-mail and what you want to do as far as octane requirements. A properly re-designed OEM head is no problem for 92 octane compression. 100 octane compression is also no problem, but requires tig welding. 110 octane type compresssons are not possible with an OEM head. The above assumes head geometry is designed for a 54mm stroke and an acceptable MSV for the octane fuel.

If I remember correctly re-chembered it also. Pretty sure you would not be happy with taking off .030" without doing something with the squish band. Probably should get a hold of Mopar for the details before going any further.

Must be the high octane fuel then...

Just a heads up... There are "fitment issues" with 33pwk's and the t-5's in your sig. Those RU-0620 filters wont work with a one peice Boss intake for instance... Maybe save you from buying two sets of filters like I did???

If you have the compression to actually need 110 octane fuel, then yes +6 on the ignition advance would be an advantage. If you do not have 110 compression, more than +6 would be an advantage for you with 110 octane fuel. Not saying you don't have 110 octane compression with a re-worked OEM head... Just that it take a lot of work to make it happen. It's not something that is normally done due to the $$$ involved.

Saw it on Greenhulk and linked it here a couple months back for somebody asking a similar question. Makes me the original link thief...

I rode one around Las Vegas for a few years in the late 70's, no heat issues at all, trust me... Bought it wrecked from the previous owners widow. During the course of the re-build I ended up with practically the whole Racer-1 Cafe catalog on it. Very light weight and quick and handled like shit. One of the few bikes I wish I had never gotten rid of... Guy I sold it to also killed himself on it!!! Bad Mojo...

Where is that crank shipping from, exactly.